- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
DAA said:
Exactly my point. Their job is to facilitate a relocation for members. Part of that is a clear explanation of entitlements, benefits, etc etc, regardless of how many times someone has moved previously under IRP. They are not doing this - what I have seen in the last two APS is nothing but IRP "consultants" (and I use that term very lightly) cherry picking what they want or don't want to explain to members. And when the consultant doesn't "understand" something, their own interpretation of the policy should not be applied (and while I am at it, why is policy allowed to be interpreted in the first place? Policy is policy, period).
[rant on]If I refer back to my last posting, they disallowed a very clear entitlement of the licensing costs for spousal employment (my wife is an RN) all because the "consultant" interpreted something written on the receipt from the NBNA along the lines of reinstatement of license. She interpreted this to mean that Mrs. Happy had allowed the license to lapse while still residing in this province (even though the real reason it lapsed was because we had been in Ontario for the previous 5 years which I clearly explained). I even went to the IRP coordinator / liaison / whatever the official term is for the military pers who is responsible, and was flat out told that they could not overrule the "consultant's" interpretation and Mrs. Happy should have kept paying the $450 per year to remain licensed in NB even though we were posted to Pet and didn't know we'd be returning :facepalm: I was offered the option to go to DCBA for adjudication, but being as angry as I was, I just said f it.
If I, a Cbt Engr who is not paid to advise on, implement and enforce TB policy WRT paid moves can take the time to research all the appropriate policy as it applies to military members (and by this, I mean QR&O, DAOD, CBI, etc. not some chickensh*t Brookfield "interpretation") to at least be able to try and provide some suitable advice to my subordinates, then Brookfield employees who are paid to do this function as it is their job can surely take the time to ensure they know the policy inside and out.
Perhaps if DND tied the payment of the consultant for the administration of a move to their actual performance instead of throwing $$$$ at Brookfield and then washing their hands of it, threads like this would quickly vanish. The system as it is, IMHO, is very broken, and it appears that all anyone in the crystal palace cares about is saving the almighty dollar. But yet when Bloggins' move goes to sh*t and he / she is up in front of the CoC for financial or admin burden because they lost their shirt during their last cost move, the system places the blame solely on Bloggins' shoulder.[/rant]
I fully understand that a lot of the complaints aired come from pers who are not fully versed in cost move policy, but I fully believe it is time to cut away the dead weight and start staffing those positions with pers who actually understand the responsibility they have, in addition to bringing some CF oversight back into the picture to ensure these "consultants" are not misinterpreting clearly laid out policy. However, being the realist I am, I know this will most likely never happen, so I will just add it to the list of reasons why the creaking of the out door swinging is starting to get more frequent as more and more CF members tire of this merry-go-round.
Out.
ullhair: 
The QL3 Pte, that was another story. After me telling him to put everything in writing (and I even gave him a draft), he staffed it through his CoC, after being returned multiple times for spelling, grammar, contents, etc, etc it was finally reviewed by the unit C Clk and then "denied" by the unit CO. I saw the poor kid about 3-4 weeks later and asked where the memo was and he told me the story. He came over to my office the next day, re-did the memo, he signed it, Brookefield put a minute on it, I forwarded it with my review notes to DCBA and the kid had his money less than a month later.
